Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment

Last registered on July 05, 2023
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0001759
Initial registration date
November 05, 2016

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
November 05, 2016, 11:35 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
July 05, 2023, 12:00 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
Denmark
Region
Copenhagen

Primary Investigator

Name
Adriaan Soetevent
Affiliation
University of Groningen
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Toke Fosgaard
PI Affiliation
University of Copenhagen
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2016-11-06
End date
2018-05-18
Keywords
Finance & Microfinance
Additional Keywords
Charitable Fundraising
JEL code(s)
C93; D64; L31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Innovations in consumer payment instruments urge charities to adapt the way they raise funds. In door-to-door fund raising, the shift in preference from giving cash to making donations by mobile phone changes the nature of the interaction between solicitor and donor. This study deals with the challenge posed to charities on how to ensure that mobile phone users participate in the fund raising drive. We investigate this in collaboration with a Danish charity. Our 3x2 design targets respondents who have indicated a preference to give by mobile phone. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Fosgaard, Toke and Adriaan Soetevent. 2023. "Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. July 05. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1759-11.2
Former Citation
Fosgaard, Toke and Adriaan Soetevent. 2023. "Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. July 05. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1759/history/185371
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
In the annual door-to-door fund-raising drive of a large charitable organization, solicited households who indicate that they wish to donate by mobile phone at a later date are randomly assigned to one of six treatments. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.
Intervention (Hidden)
In the annual door-to-door fund-raising drive of a large charitable organization in selected areas of Copenhagen (Denmark), solicited households who indicate that they wish to donate by mobile phone at a later date are randomly assigned to one of six treatments. The treatments differ in two dimensions:a. whether these respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.
Intervention Start Date
2016-11-06
Intervention End Date
2016-11-07

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
a. Donations by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone;
b. Pledged amounts by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participating solicitors will be randomly assigned to six groups:
I. NPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
II. NP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer;
III. SPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
IV. SP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do face a deadline to complete the transfer;
V. FPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents face no deadline to complete the transfer;
VI. FP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. Respondents face a deadline to complete the transfer.

Experimental Design Details
Participating solicitors will be randomly assigned to six groups:
I. NPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to state the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
II. NP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to state the intended amount. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer;
III. SPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
IV. SP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. These respondents do face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer;
V. FPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. The solicitor writes this amount on a flyer, adds his/her signature and gives the flyer to the respondent. These respondents face no deadline to complete the transfer;
VI. FP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. The solicitor writes this amount on a flyer, adds his/her signature and gives the flyer to the respondent. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer.

Randomization Method
One of the PIs took 6 instruction packages (one of each treatment) and randomly put them in one of six bags that also contained the other materials solicitors needed. These six bags were randomly ordered in a bunch that was tied together with a piece of rope. At the intervention date, the helpers picked one of these bunches and assigned a bag to a solicitor arriving (taking out the instructions and reading them out aloud to the solicitor). Each time the helper had finished a bunch, he or she fetched a new bunch of six bags.
Randomization Unit
Level of randomization is the solicitor level
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
300 solicitors
Sample size: planned number of observations
Planned number of total observations in terms of households approached: 30,000 (100 per solicitor)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 solicitors in NP7: no pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in NPinf: no pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in SP7: soft pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in SPinf: soft pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in FP7: firm pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in FPinf: firm pledge, no deadline;
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
Application of Exclusion Rules on Blinded Outcome Data
Document Type
other
Document Description
The Pre-Analysis Plan (PAP) to this study (Fosgaard and Soetevent, 2016) outlined the ex ante
rules in analysing the collected data. This report explains how these rules have been applied. Es-
pecially, it is explained how one of the authors (Soetevent) applied these exclusion rules on the
blinded outcome data to arrive at the analysis set, i.e. the estimation sample used in the main
analysis of the paper.
File
Application of Exclusion Rules on Blinded Outcome Data

MD5: 2c39699c0f2c0d6c587da719d82fdb2a

SHA1: 92019c0adfeb9d29aad398020f2d4349e274af11

Uploaded At: October 10, 2017

Document Name
Statistical analysis on the blinded data
Document Type
other
Document Description
This document describes the statistical portion of the Pre-Analysis Plan (PAP) of the study (Fosgaard and Soetevent, 2016), based on the blinded outcome data. This document has been completed by one of the researchers [Soetevent] before he had access to the unblinded outcome data
File
Statistical analysis on the blinded data

MD5: 070d41963fa82db62f0af5dd8f22b56a

SHA1: c4e1cf906c437dae1feb83967cc7ca97aa43aff5

Uploaded At: November 01, 2017

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen
IRB Approval Date
2016-11-04
IRB Approval Number
RUG_FEB2016AS01
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Statistical analysis on the blinded data
Pre-analysis plan: Does pledging increase charitable giving? A door-to-door mobile phone fund-raising field experiment

MD5: 3679ff7a28780df1d696c6621b287d11

SHA1: d80f60b15c37d2383ee91e5c453ee2abf12bbcb5

Uploaded At: November 05, 2016

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
November 06, 2016, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
July 11, 2017, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
83 solicitors
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
6,973
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
29 NA pledge, 22 SA pledge, 32 FA pledge
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
Yes
Public Data URL
https://osf.io/3vtq8

Program Files

Program Files
Yes
Program Files URL
https://osf.io/3vtq8
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Abstract
Given the replacement of cash with cell phone payments, people who are asked to donate to charity can easily promise a donation but delay the transfer until a later date. This may be a way to get out of the ask-situation with a positive image while maintaining the flexibility not to donate. This study explores whether charities can make people keep their promises by making such promises more explicit and more formal. In a door-to-door fund-raising field experiment, we vary the strength of the promise that donors make. Besides a control group where people can promise to donate, we apply two treatment groups. In the first treatment, donors are asked to verbally pledge a precise amount. In a second treatment, this amount is in addition put on paper with the solicitor’s signature added. Both treatments are aimed at making it morally more expensive not to keep promises. Our results show that: (1) the majority of people do not follow through on their promise to donate; (2) donors who pledge an explicit amount more often keep their promise. The more formal the commitment, the closer the amount donated is to the amount promised; (3) many participants refuse to pledge a donation amount when asked, and those who refuse donate significantly less.
Citation
Toke R. Fosgaard, Adriaan R. Soetevent, I will donate later! A field experiment on cell phone donations to charity, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Volume 202, 2022, Pages 549-565, ISSN 0167-2681.
URL
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.08.025

Reports & Other Materials